The Good Place

I've never understood why people like Steve choose to engage with this community; at least in the fashion in which he does engage.

Reminds me of the, nearly completely, pointless debates between theists and atheists.  I've listened to dozens hoping to get something out of the dialogue and yet all I see is willful talking past each other with no actual intellectual engagement.  Its boring and completely unproductive.

Thus I have no idea what Steve's motivation may be because he clearly isn't interested in having his viewpoint challenged.  He can say the same about the more "psi friendly" folks here (or however you'd term them), but there is a key distinction: This is a community for that viewpoint.

This has been further illuminated for me in my recent listening of the Harris/Peterson discussions.  While they continue to talk past each other a bit, there is an honest dialogue that occurs with both parties acknowledging (some) of the limits of their viewpoint.  Neither resorting to appeals of faith either of the "science will prove it" or "that's God" when pressed into a corner.

So, I'll keep reading these threads but it would be refreshing to have an actual counter viewpoint poster here beyond Steve.  One who's willing to be intellectually honest about the limits of their own viewpoint and biases.

Thus I have no idea what Steve's motivation may be because he clearly isn't interested in having his viewpoint challenged.  He can say the same about the more "psi friendly" folks here (or however you'd term them), but there is a key distinction: This is a community for that viewpoint.

It's not, though. The forum rules explicitly say that it's open to both proponents and sceptics.

It's unfortunate that there's so little sceptical comment here, but that situation isn't going to improve if it's seen as a community where only proponents are welcome.

It's not, though. The forum rules explicitly say that it's open to both proponents and sceptics.

It's unfortunate that there's so little sceptical comment here, but that situation isn't going to improve if it's seen as a community where only proponents are welcome.

I don't want to put words in the mouth of Silence (wow, that's an odd phrase to write) but I don't think Silence was making the point that this should be a proponent-only forum. Indeed Silence anticipates your point by saying "it would be refreshing to have an actual counter viewpoint poster here beyond Steve".

The focus of this forum is Psi and related subjects but these subjects are open to discussion and sceptics are welcome and have been from the start. If it were a mere talking shop for the already convinced then Steve001, Fls and others would have been moderated off the forum long ago. I can attest that happened to me on a science forum when I joined to ask a question about consciousness in quantum physics and was banned as a troll for bringing up the supernatural in a science forum. 

The fact is that Steve001 has been around this forum and Skeptiko as long as I have. When I discovered Skeptiko in 2011 I believe he was already posting then. Nothing has changed. Some other "resident" skeptics have said that their views have been modified somewhat over time but not Steve001. He is a true believer in the fundamentalist tradition which is why I gave up trying to appeal to his reason - he has none. None of what has been presented over the years, either in the form of evidence or debate, has impinged upon that absolute faith he carries. As I've said previously, I wouldn't invite those doorstepping Jehovah's Witnesses in for a discussion because I would be wasting my time and theirs; similarly with Steve001 - it is a waste of time.

It wouldn't be so tiresome if he actually understood the science he claims to revere but he clearly doesn't.

I don't want to put words in the mouth of Silence (wow, that's an odd phrase to write) but I don't think Silence was making the point that this should be a proponent-only forum. Indeed Silence anticipates your point by saying "it would be refreshing to have an actual counter viewpoint poster here beyond Steve".

The focus of this forum is Psi and related subjects but these subjects are open to discussion and sceptics are welcome and have been from the start. If it were a mere talking shop for the already convinced then Steve001, Fls and others would have been moderated off the forum long ago. I can attest that happened to me on a science forum when I joined to ask a question about consciousness in quantum physics and was banned as a troll for bringing up the supernatural in a science forum. 

The fact is that Steve001 has been around this forum and Skeptiko as long as I have. When I discovered Skeptiko in 2011 I believe he was already posting then. Nothing has changed. Some other "resident" skeptics have said that their views have been modified somewhat over time but not Steve001. He is a true believer in the fundamentalist tradition which is why I gave up trying to appeal to his reason - he has none. None of what has been presented over the years, either in the form of evidence or debate, has impinged upon that absolute faith he carries. As I've said previously, I wouldn't invite those doorstepping Jehovah's Witnesses in for a discussion because I would be wasting my time and theirs; similarly with Steve001 - it is a waste of time.

It wouldn't be so tiresome if he actually understood the science he claims to revere but he clearly doesn't.

Should I find it hypocritical that skeptics are required to yield?

"What I'm saying is you appear to be looking forward to post mortem survival. You defend the NDE with enthusiasm"

When have I ever said I was really forward to going to "heaven" ?? You don't understand my position at all. I wouldn't want to entertain such thoughts. If "heaven" exists (and I believe there is at least another dimension) I'll either end up there..or I won't.

"You defend the NDE with enthusiasm"

What does defending the NDE mean ? Do you mean I ought to be attacking it? Trying to refute what these people are telling us ? Why would I do that ?

I've examined the phenomenon in minute detail for over forty years and the only explanation that fits the bill is the one that you dodo's won't allow ! Near death experiences are a massive clue that there is something much more to the human condition than just birth to death. I'm interested only in what is true as much as I am able to discern it, that is.

You keep asserting that I'm religious yet I'm not. But would I be guilty of being anymore deluded than you, if I was ? Your "religion" is every bit as zealous and illogical and if anything it's more foolish. You might take pride in regarding yourself as enlightened/free from superstition but you've got nothing at all to help you deal with the sobering prospect of annihilation.

 "As all Christians believe Heaven holds the promise of a life many would like to live while alive."

The human condition is inherently unsatisfactory. In general we persevere regardless. If there is another dimension of existence (and there are numerous reasons to believe that there is) why shouldn't we be allowed to hold out hope for something better ?  Why is that wrong ? 

"but suppose that post mortem survival does not lead to spiritual growth, cosmic knowledge ecetera. Instead you're just as you are now but in non corporeal form muddling your way through time for all eternity. If that's the case, what's the point of post mortem consciousness survival?"

That's a very ineffective objection to the concept of survival. Whatever the 'mechanics' of it are, they are. Presumably at some deeper aspect of us, we are quite familiar with it.

The point I was attempting to make is your position has its foundation in religious belief, that's all.

The point I was attempting to make is your position has its foundation in religious belief, that's all.

Nearly all of civilisation has it's foundations in religious belief, Steve. You haven't properly responded to my post.

Nearly all of civilisation has it's foundations in religious belief, Steve. You haven't properly responded to my post.

There's nothing further to address since wasn't commenting on anything you believe other than the point stated.

Should I find it hypocritical that skeptics are required to yield?

Even though I have you on ignore, I did post a comment about you to which you are entitled to respond. In turn, it is only fair that I answer your question but I'm not getting into a pointless back-and-forth with you for reasons I explained above: it's a waste of time for both of us.

Your response here illustrates that you don't get the nature of the debate here (or in science, in philosophy or any other area of knowledge). Using the word "yield" shows that you think you are in some kind of battle: a fight to preserve your beliefs. This suggests that you are taking part in these discussions as part of a mission, not as an opportunity to learn from the experiences of others.

Nobody is required to yield, Steve. We all, hopefully, learn from debates and from the information and evidence presented. All, except you. Your tone and content has remained unchanged in all those years and, I suggest, that is entirely due to this mistaken idea that you are in a battle to save your ideology.

Granted, as in many areas of life, some things will not change. Some of us went through stages of being religious and then rejecting that religion and becoming atheists before shifting again as we learned from our searching and discoveries. Eventually we settled upon a philosophical foundation that makes sense to us. Those foundations, therefore, usually remain solid. Thus most of us here share a belief that materialism cannot explain many of the major metaphysical questions (and here I would remind you again that materialism is also a metaphysical position). 

So while I might not have abandoned my bedrock idealism I have, over the years, learned to be more critical of evidence and more scientifically aware of alternative explanations. So when for example, a sceptic cites Susan Blackmore and her anoxia theories, I have to understand her in order to satisfy myself that her ideas fall short of an explanation. Over the years, I've learned a lot of science just by considering the arguments of sceptics on this forum and Skeptiko before that. I did NOT feel that by learning and understanding that scientific viewpoint I was in any way yielding to another ideology. I am NOT on a mission against science. I do NOT camp out on atheist forums lecturing them on how wrong they are.

I suspect that the "yielding" Steve001 was referring to was whether or not to accept the characterization that evidence (in the scientific sense) or debate favors the proponent position. Those who do not accept this characterization could be seen as obstinate to those who do.

Linda

I suspect that the "yielding" Steve001 was referring to was whether or not to accept the characterization that evidence (in the scientific sense) or debate favors the proponent position. Those who do not accept this characterization could be seen as obstinate to those who do.

Linda

Not just including the years here and at Skeptiko I've noticed skeptics have little trouble understanding each other. Whereas the less and non skeptical have a difficult time understanding skeptical positions. I want to hold my breath waiting for the Karmarling's of the world to move to a more skeptical position but I'm pretty sure I can't hold my breath long enough for that to happen.